PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite party on the allegations that one FDR of Rs. 2500/- was got made by the complainant No. 1 and her mother Milap Kaur wife of Gurdip Singh in their joint name, bearing No. 739309/9/84 on dated 21.12.1984 with due date 21.12.1989 with the opposite party payable to either or survivor. Another FDR for Rs. 2500/- was also got made by the complainant No. 2 alongwith his mother MilapKaur wife of Gurdip Singh in their joint name, bearing No.739308/8/84 on 21.12.1984 with due date 21.12.1989 with the opposite party payable to either or survivor. The original FDR were kept in the house by the complainant and were misplaced and not traceable for a long period as such without the original FDR the opposite party refused to make the maturity amounts covered by the said FDR. The mother of the complainant died on 24.7.1999. The said original FDR were found in the house and the complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to make the payment of the amounts covered by said FDR, they presented the original FDR and death certificate of their mother Milap Singh to opposite party. Firstly they put off the matter on one pretext or the other but later on they flatly refused to pay any amount to the complainant whereas the amount of said FDR is payable to either or survivor. The complainants are legally bound to make the payment of the entire amount covered by the said FDR alongwith interest accrued on the same up to date, as applicable and they cannot refuse to make the payment of the same. Their refusal on the flimsy ground is malafide, unjust with a view to grab the money of the complainant which is their hard earned money and they have a legal right to withdraw the same. Opposite party is liable to pay up to date interest on the said FDR. The complainants are the legal heir of the deceased mother MilapKaurand their name mentioned on the said FDR. Except them no other person is entitled to receive the amount of these FDRs. It is trust money lying with the opposite party, belonging to the complainant and there is no limitation for the withdrawal of this amount covered by the FDR in question. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainants have suffered a great mental pain, agony harassment etc. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to make payment of the entire amount covered by the FDR in question with accrued interest thereon up to date. The complainant prayed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interailia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable legally. The complainants are guilty of not coming to the commission with clean hands and they are further guilty of suppressing various true and material facts from the knowledge of this Commission. The FDRs in question were having their maturity date as 21.12.1989and both the complainants are one of the owners/ holders in due course of law of the aforesaid FDRs and if their aforesaid FDRs might have been lost somewhere, then they would had definitely lodged some DDR, thereby reporting about the loss/ misplace of the aforesaid FDRs and then on the basis of aforesaid FDRs they would have claimed the amount of maturity value of the aforesaid DDR from the bank i.e. opposite party in the year 1989.This part is totally silent on the part of the complainants. Accordingly, there is every possibility that the complainants might have already received the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs by claiming loss of the same from the opposite party after its maturity, but now it seems that the complainants have approached this commission with the malafide intention in their mind that they can again claim the maturity value of the aforesaid FDRs because the banks do not preserve or maintain the record beyond the period of 10 years. Thus taking benefit of this thing there is every possibility that the complainants might have been claiming maturity amount of aforesaid FDRs from the opposite party through the instant complaint. Otherwise, it is also relevant fact to be mentioned here that the complainants have neither approached the opposite party for release of the amounts of the FDRs nor the opposite party has ever refused to release the amounts of the FDRs. If the complainants are held entitled to receive the fruits of the FDRs. Then the interest is to be calculated as per the Guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The complaint being filed with malafide intention required to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the complaint in hand is hopelessly time barred because the cause of action to claim the maturity amount on 21.12.1989 i.e. date of maturity of the FDRs and the same subsisted till 21.12.1991 i.e. the period of two years permissible for filing the complaint as per the provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 but the period required for filing the complaint has already expired on 21.12.1991 and since the present complaint has been filed in the year 2017 and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, the same being filed beyond the period of limitation. Even otherwise, the complainants have failed to seek necessary permission for condonation of delay that has occurred in filing the present complaint by way of moving application Under Section 24-A of the Act. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and denied the other allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. copies of FDRs Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4, copy of death certificate Ex. C-5  and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex. OP1, document Ex. OP2

5        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6        The combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and documents placed on record, it is going to show that the complainant Harvinder Kaur and her mother Mrs. Milap Kaur deposited Rs. 2,500/- in the shape of FDR on 21.12.1984 and the maturity date of the said FDR was 21.12.1989. Further another FDR was prepared for an amount of Rs. 2,500/- by the Suhirdbir Singh and Smt. Milap Kaur on 21.12.1984 and maturity date of this FDR was also 21.12.1989. The original FDRs were kept in the house of the complainant and were misplaced and not traceable for a long period as such, without original FDRs the opposite parties refused to make the maturity amount. The mother of complainant died on 24.7.1999 and when the FDRs were found in the house, the complainants approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of said FDRs alongwith original FDRs and death certificate of their mother MilapKaur  but they flatly refused to pay any amount to the complainant, whereas the amount of said FDRs is payable to either or survivor. Whereas the opposite party contended that the complainants are guilty of not come to this commission with clean hands. The opposite party further contended if FDRs are lost then why the complainants had not lodged some DDR. The complainant might have already received the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs by claiming loss of the same from the opposite party after its maturity. The bank does preserve or maintain the record beyond the period of 10 years. The complainant must have taking the benefit of same. The other pleas taken by opposite party is that the complainant has neither approached the opposite party to release the amount of FDR nor the opposite parties ever refused to release the amount of FDRs.Further admitted that if the complainants are held entitled to receive the fruits of the FDRs, then the interest is to be calculated as per the guidelines of the reserve bank of India.Further the opposite party has taken the plea that the complaint is hopelessly time barred.

7        The opposite party has taken the plea that the complaint is hopelessly time barred but we are not agreed to this plea as there have been continuous cause of action in favour of complainant because till date after making the efforts the complainants have not received maturity amount of the FDRs. Further the opposite party has taken the plea that bank does not preserve and maintain the record beyond the period of 10 years. We are not agreed to the contentions raised by the opposite parties that bank was duty bound to preserve the record of FDRs as the maturity amount was never paid to the complainant and the case of the complainants is still pending. The original FDRs are lying with the complainant then how the Bank can raise this point that complainants might have taken the maturity amount as there is no record of the said FDRs and opposite party admitted that if the complainants are entitled to held to receive the amount then the interest is to be calculated as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. We are of the considered opinion that the said FDRs were lost by complainants and after the death of their mother as and when they found the FDRs they approached the opposite partyfor release of maturity amount. Further we are also of the opinion that the complainants must get the interest of FDRs, on prevailing rate of interest of the FDRs from the date of maturity till actual realsiation. The complainants are held entitled to the interest on FDRs on prevailing interest as per citation titled Punjab and Sind Bank Vs Prabhjinder Singh decided on 12.6.2017 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab. It was the duty of the bank to inform the complainants regarding maturity of FDRs so that the complainants could have renewed the same or receive maturity amount. The complainants would have authorized the bank for auto renewal of the FDRs for further same period. But if at all at the time of opening the FDRs. auto renewal option was not marked, the bank was duty bound to give a reminder to the complainant either to renew the same or get the instructions from the complainants for the same. As per the guidelines the banks are liable to send 15 days notice before the maturity date of FDRs. But in this matter Bank has never sent even a single letter to the complainantto seek the instructions regarding their FDRs. So it is crystal clear from the above discussion that Bank has never intimated to the complainants either personally, through mobile Number or through registered letter and at this stage opposite party bank is offering saving interest only for intervening period and failed to renew the above said F.D.Rs. without any valid reason. The officials of the bank are bound to inform customers at the time of pending of term deposit amount and seek further instructions with regard to closure of account or renewal of deposit for further period from the date of maturity. In this case, bank has failed to do so. More so in the absence of such mandate of auto renewal the opposite party should have sought the instructions from the complainant. By not doing so, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

8        In view of above discussion we partly allow the present complaint and directed the opposite party to release the FDRs. amount with prevailing interest on FDRs time to time from the date of its maturity till the date of actual realization. The complainants have also been harassed by the opposite party, as such, the complainantsare also entitled to Rs. 7,500/- (Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of accident till its realisation.  Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

06.04.2022